PaJoFo Ponderings

To Boldly Go? Or Not?

Created: Modified: 16 min read

Note

This paper was composed for GOVT 490 in the Turabian format, it is presented here with minimal edits and some format adjustments. It looks better in the original word doc

Abstract

Space colonization is an increasingly important topic for discussion and will have significant implications for the future of the human race. This paper examines views on space colonization and arguments for and against it, examining the plan through a theistic, biblical, and secular worldview, pragmatic considerations are also included. Core objections oppose resource use for trading off with more important actions, while theistic and biblical views hold that colonization could be a good because it utilizes resources given by God. The paper concludes that future colonization should be pursued, but only with correct intentions and prudent action.

Introduction

Space: the final frontier, the land beyond the earth which holds potential for greatness and for ruin. Space: a place where dreams and nightmares converge, from the depths of Valles Marineris to the heights of Olympus Mons, from Ganymede to Ceres, from the meridians of Mercury to the poles of Pluto, man has seen from a distance that which future generations may see face to face; however, the wisdom of such exploration and settlement is contested. Space exploration has been considered in literature as old as Lucian’s 2nd century A.D. True Story.1 Colonization has remained a subject of interest with examination in movies, books, and dramas and has been made even more relevant now by the increasing sense that it is possible and imminent; one prime example being billionaire Elon Musk’s pursuit of space colonization and Mars settlement by 2029.2 That potential cusp has made the issue especially important for Christians to consider, as they must choose whether to support such developments and journeys or to oppose such ventures in policy and lack of participation. While questions remain about when space colonization will become technologically viable, or if it ever will be, past experience shows that it is foolish to get caught up in the question of whether something can be done without first exploring whether it should be.

Research Question

The driving question of this paper is as follows: Is space colonization compatible with the Christian worldview? From that main question flow more complex questions including is space colonization desirable from a Christian worldview and what arguments made for and against space colonization from secular and other non-Christian perspectives are applicable when applying a biblical worldview to potential future colonization of the stars. These are novel questions, which have only recently been made relevant by the advent of technology that makes space colonization feasible.

Theoretical Perspective

The primary theoretical framework of this paper is the Christian worldview. Using a qualitative analysis informed by the Bible and supplemented by the understandings of past and present Christian thinkers, the goal of the analysis is to determine if a given action is in keeping with God’s will and word, first considering if space colonization is in violation of God’s law, and secondly considering if space colonization could be a moral good, rather than a merely amoral act.

Literature Review

Research on space colonization is still a nascent field, as permanent and sustainable extraterrestrial habitation remains a project that may be impossible, potentially due to failures of cooperation, lack of financial viability, or a future conflict dramatically reducing technical sophistication.3 As it is, some level of manned space exploration remains likely, and in the future it’s likely that the ideas outlined below will be dramatically expanded upon and perhaps a clearer and more concrete answer will be determined.

Theistic View

The idea of a vast universe, apparently unpopulated, is confusing to those who consider all creation as having a purpose. After all, why would God create billions of stars some of which are so distant that man cannot see them at all if man is both the only life in the universe and meant to remain on earth. In a 2022 paper, Christian Weidemann examined this question, and after assessing all possible options concludes that the only logical reason for the existence of empty planets is that they are meant to be colonized and that “the vast and empty universe should be interpreted by theists as a divine invitation, as God giving his blessing to intergalactic space-faring and settlement.”4 Alternative options, such as the provision of sensations of aesthetic beauty or cosmic insignificance, inefficient creation of locations for life to spontaneously arise, and the potential that God is trying to make his existence ambiguous are all discarded as failing at either practical or ontological levels.5 Such analysis means that intelligent life was created with the purpose of space colonization, making it, if not an ethical imperative to be pursued, something to be celebrated if it is executed in a way that is otherwise moral.6 Much of Weidemann’s analysis, while not specifically Christian, is well suited to the biblical worldview because it hinges on God having traits that Christianity concurs with, primarily absolute goodness and thus perfect knowledge and existence.7 On the other hand, Weidmann’s conclusion also argues that space colonization forestalls and disproves eschatological claims which Christianity holds to be true.

Biblical Worldview

Christians advocating for space colonization as an explicitly Christian project are rare. While many advocate for such exploration or engage in such work to produce technology to enable it, few seem to consider it a question of great moral significance. Critics, on the other hand, attribute advocacy for space colonization as a “some interpretation of Christian dominion, or dominionist, theology that drives colonization advocates to declare that humans are destined to fill the universe, that humans ‘must’ colonize Mars, that outer space resources are there for the taking.”8 Such theology pulls from Genesis 1:28 in which God gives Adam dominion over the earth, commanding him to “subdue it” and Genesis 8:17 in which God tells Noah and his sons to “be fruitful and multiply on the earth” (Genesis 1:28 & 8:17 [English Standard Version]). In the past, these commands have been interpreted to endorse expansion of civilization across continents, and the underlying reasoning suggests that space colonization may be an appropriate frontier to colonize next. A similar argument for space colonization is that God has given people gifts and that space, as the new frontier, is where those gifts can be most put to the test and utilized, while, conversely, failing to use such gifts for space colonization is to stifle them.9

Major criticisms of space colonization from the Christian perspective focus on how it trades off with other potentially beneficial work and its inherent elite nature. Specifically, opponents claim such space colonization is prohibitively expensive for most people and could lead to greater laxity in social and environmental programs.10 Such laxity would then be a dereliction of obligations placed upon governments in 1 Peter 2:14 which says that governors should “punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14 [English Standard Version]). Failure to sufficiently do or praise those who do good is thus a negative potential result of government pursuit or subsidy of space colonization, assuming that the benefits were only for the wealthy.

Secular Incentives

Secular philosophy provides numerous reasons to pursue space colonization. The most common is the idea that humanity needs to be a multiplanetary species in order to prevent the extinction of the human race from natural or manmade disaster.11 This is in line with utilitarian ethics and a kind of Darwinian idea that the chief end of man is the propagation of the species. On the other hand, some argue that space colonization would be a bad idea for the exact same reason, that colonization of space could lead to the planet destroying weapons, alien disease, or other catastrophic outcomes. Laying those far-fetched scenarios aside, arguments against short-term space colonization are similar to the ones discussed under the biblical worldview. Namely that space colonization is too expensive and has little possible gain while there are major current issues on earth that need to be attended to first.12 Objections made on impossibility use this argument and even some enthusiasts argue that the governmental house must be set in order before any further space exploration can be made, meaning that it would be a bad idea, at least in the short-term.13 Others argue that the idea of space colonization itself reignites past colonial violence and so, at the very least, the rhetoric around it ought to be changed.14

One particular subset of secular and utilitarian arguments deals with the value of potential lives enabled by space colonization and whether those lives would be worth living. Some calculations indicate that “approximately 1038 human lives [are] lost every century that colonization of our local supercluster is delayed.”15 Such a number boggles the mind, comprising many times more lives than there are grains of sand on earth.16 Critics, however, argue that, though space colonization has the potential to create more life, the lives created by it might not be worth living, either because humans are poorly adapted to survive on other worlds or due to conflicts arising from potential colonization.17 Using utilitarian logic, the questions of whether it is better to be alive or nonexistent and whether the world has seen an improvement if both suffering and happiness have increased are quite difficult to answer.

Pragmatic Considerations

The primary purpose of space colonization, aside from previously mentioned insurance policy plans, is to create material wealth for humans on and off earth. This is possible through interplanetary asteroid mining and the unique characteristics of orbit and other worlds that are better for certain industrial processes. Asteroid mining specifically has the potential to dramatically increase manufacturing capacity, providing massively increased availability of metals like iron, uranium, and gold which can be used to produce goods and grow the economy.18 Especially notable, such expansion could fuel an energy revolution planet side, dramatically lowering the cost of power and increasing consumption. That, combined with the fact that energy is highly correlated with wealth, health, and wellbeing and that “depriving people of any society of reliable and affordable energy denies them access to clean water, adequate medical care, affordable transportation, and economic opportunities” means that the expanding access to energy would potentially dramatically increase the quality of life for people around the globe.19 That increase in quality of life, amenable to nearly all ethical systems, would be desirable, so long as other, previously mentioned risks like huge suffering, impossibility, or unexpected catastrophe did not ensue first.

Analysis of Research

The sum of the research indicates that there are reasons to look forward to and reasons to be concerned about hasty space colonization and that a prudent approach is necessary. Such approaches must recognize that colonization should not take the place of other action here on Earth and that the potential for frequent failures is high, especially early on.
Even so, the weight of evidence does not point toward space colonization being bad in-and-of-itself; if it could be executed effectively, it would provide massive help to the world, reducing hunger, improving living conditions, and providing future generations with greater prosperity and, potentially, happiness. To be fruitful and multiply is an inherent good, and thus, if space colonization is able to further than good, then it would, absent other costs, be something good to pursue, with such pursuit further justified by the fact that the resources in space and the abilities needed to get there are both gifts from God that can be utilized as such.

Additionally, greater economic prosperity would have the potential of increasing support and effectiveness of missionary operations, perhaps helping to spread the gospel.
Those justifications are much stronger than others put forth by secular philosophy, especially under conventional interpretations of the Bible. Claims of existential risk and the idea that humanity needs a life insurance policy to avoid potentially world ending events are not legible to a world that will end in accordance with providential plan. The book of Revelation specifically would contradict such claims because it describes the end of days as happening on Earth. Similarly, the idea that all of humanity could be wiped out before the eschaton is incoherent as that would imply that the gates of hell could, in some way, prevail against the church, contradicting Matthew 16:18 which says that they “shall not” (Matthew 16:18 [English Standard Version]). The argument for future generations of humanity being lost with space colonization is stronger as it relates to the multiplication of the human race, but as that is not a command, and the research for the astronomical numbers of potential lives lost requires a scenario of space colonization that goes beyond current technical capabilities and requires existence until stars burn out, its importance is, at the least, mitigated.

Opposing arguments also have troubles. The idea that space colonization exacerbates inequality would also indict any high-cost technology like industrial agriculture, flat screen televisions, or desalination plants, all of which are clearly not inherent evils, and which, after longer-term adoption, see decreasing prices allowing the less fortunate to acquire them. As such the idea that space colonization would be an elite project is incomplete at best. Those claims often stem from the idea that wealth can only be distributed not created. That stance then inevitably perceives claims of wealth creation as hidden forms of exploitation. Such claims are based in deficient theology that have “no concept of creatio ex nihilo.”20 Understanding this, one can reject the blanket assertion that projects that might initially benefit the elite are immoral and return to a more fair assessment of the costs and benefits that expanded manufacturing can bring, recognizing that while the rich might disproportionately benefit that doesn’t erase other beneficiaries.

Objections to space colonization as a negative because it serves as a new form of past colonization also fall flat, mostly because, even allowing the full weight of past colonial grievances, those claims are based on the negative impacts on the peoples who lived in the lands that were colonized, and who, in space, do not exist making, such criticisms more rhetorical than substantial.

Conclusion

The core question of this paper, is space colonization compatible with the Christian worldview, is one that is difficult to answer. Core objections provide strong arguments for prudence, but do not rise to the level of general objections to all space colonization. Meanwhile, advocacy relies on speculative hopes of limitless wealth comparable to dreams of the city of gold and fountain of youth in the new world. Conceptually, if those dreams can be made reality, then space colonization would a good thing, helping mankind to become more prosperous and improving the lives of many. Using God-given gifts is an inherent good, and pursuing space colonization is the way that some can use their gifts. Overall, future governments would be wise to pursue space colonization to a degree that makes sense for them, not shunning it as something incapable of doing good while also not pursuing it as the sole goal of all future development. Utilized in its appropriate place it can be valuable both from the perspective of secular utilitarians as well as the biblical worldview but done without regard for human life or wisdom it could lead to tragedy. 

Bibliography

Billings, Linda. “Colonizing Other Planets Is a Bad Idea.” Futures 110 (June 2019): 44–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.02.020.

———. “Should Humans Colonize Other Planets? No.” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 321–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335065.

Bostrom, Nick. “Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development.” Utilitas 15, no. 3 (2003). https://nickbostrom.com/papers/astronomical-waste/.

Brown, Mike. “SpaceX Mars City: Why, When, and How Elon Musk Wants to Build His Ambitious Plan.” Inverse, April 11, 2022. https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-mars-city-codex.

Coopersmith, Jonathan. “Op-Ed | New Horizons or Financially Limited Horizons?” SpaceNews (blog), August 15, 2015. https://spacenews.com/op-ed-new-horizons-or-financially-limited-horizons/.

Dayaratna, Kevin D., Diana Furchtogott-Roth, Miles Pollard, and Richard Stern. “Powering Human Advancement: Why the World Needs Affordable and Reliable Energy.” The Heritage Foundation, December 14, 2023. https://www.heritage.org/energy/report/powering-human-advancement-why-the-world-needs-affordable-and-reliable-energy.

Eriksen, Devon. “The Trillionaires of Mars.” Substack newsletter. Devon’s Substack (blog), November 14, 2024. https://devoneriksen.substack.com/p/the-trillionaires-of-mars.

Filho, José Bezerra Pessoa. “Space Age: Past, Present and Possible Futures.” Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management 13 (June 1, 2021). https://www.jatm.com.br/jatm/article/view/1226.
Fredericks, S. C. “Lucian’s True History as Sf.” Science Fiction Studies 3, no. 1 (1976): 49–60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4238997.

Kovic, Marko. “Risks of Space Colonization.” Futures 126 (February 2021): 102638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102638.

Krulwich, Robert. “Which Is Greater, The Number Of Sand Grains On Earth Or Stars In The Sky?” NPR, September 17, 2012, sec. Krulwich Wonders… https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/09/17/161096233/which-is-greater-the-number-of-sand-grains-on-earth-or-stars-in-the-sky.

MacIntyre, Auron. “How Space Travel Became Right-Wing.” Blaze Media, October 16, 2024. https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/how-space-travel-became-right-wing.

Meeks, Brandon. “Nationalism, Globalism, and the Ships of Tarshish.” American Reformer (blog), February 3, 2022. https://americanreformer.org/2022/02/nationalism-globalism-and-the-ships-of-tarshish/.

Millar, Alan. “Understanding Theism.” Religious Studies 17, no. 3 (1981): 311–21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20005754.

Renstrom, Joelle. “The Troubling Rhetoric of Space Exploration.” Undark Magazine, March 18, 2021. https://undark.org/2021/03/18/rhetoric-of-space-exploration/.

The English Standard Version. Crossway, 2001.

Weidemann, Christian. “Providence and the Magnitude of the Universe: A Theistic Argument for Space Settlements.” Dialog 61, no. 2 (June 2022): 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/dial.12737.
Zarkadakis, George. “Abandoning the Metropolis: Space Colonisation as the New Imperative – George Zarkadakis,” December 26, 2019. https://georgezarkadakis.com/abandoning-the-metropolis-space-colonisation-as-the-new-imperative/.

Footnotes

  1. S. C. Fredericks, “Lucian’s True History as Sf,” Science Fiction Studies 3, no. 1 (1976): 49–50, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4238997. ↩

  2. Mike Brown, “SpaceX Mars City: Why, When, and How Elon Musk Wants to Build His Ambitious Plan,” Inverse, April 11, 2022, https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-mars-city-codex. ↩

  3. José Bezerra Pessoa Filho, “Space Age: Past, Present and Possible Futures,” Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management 13 (June 1, 2021): 8–9, https://www.jatm.com.br/jatm/article/view/1226. ↩

  4. Christian Weidemann, “Providence and the Magnitude of the Universe: A Theistic Argument for Space Settlements,” Dialog 61, no. 2 (June 2022): 99, https://doi.org/10.1111/dial.12737. ↩

  5. Ibid., 96-98. ↩

  6. Ibid., 100. ↩

  7. Alan Millar, “Understanding Theism,” Religious Studies 17, no. 3 (1981): 313–15, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20005754. ↩

  8. Linda Billings, “Should Humans Colonize Other Planets? No,” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 329, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335065. ↩

  9. Auron MacIntyre, “How Space Travel Became Right-Wing” (Blaze Media, October 16, 2024), https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/how-space-travel-became-right-wing. ↩

  10. Linda Billings, “Colonizing Other Planets Is a Bad Idea,” Futures 110 (June 2019): 44–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.02.020. ↩

  11. https://www.georgezarkadakis.com/abandoning-the-metropolis-space-colonisation-as-the-new-imperative/ ↩

  12. Marko Kovic, “Risks of Space Colonization,” Futures 126 (February 2021): 5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102638. ↩

  13. Jonathan Coopersmith, “Op-Ed | New Horizons or Financially Limited Horizons?,” SpaceNews (blog), August 15, 2015, https://spacenews.com/op-ed-new-horizons-or-financially-limited-horizons/. ↩

  14. Joelle Renstrom, “The Troubling Rhetoric of Space Exploration,” Undark Magazine, March 18, 2021, https://undark.org/2021/03/18/rhetoric-of-space-exploration/. ↩

  15. Nick Bostrom, “Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development,” Utilitas 15, no. 3 (2003), https://nickbostrom.com/papers/astronomical-waste/. ↩

  16. Robert Krulwich, “Which Is Greater, The Number Of Sand Grains On Earth Or Stars In The Sky?,” NPR, September 17, 2012, sec. Krulwich Wonders…, https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/09/17/161096233/which-is-greater-the-number-of-sand-grains-on-earth-or-stars-in-the-sky. ↩

  17. Marko Kovic, “Risks of Space Colonization,” Futures 126 (February 2021): 6–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102638. ↩

  18. Devon Eriksen, “The Trillionaires of Mars,” Substack newsletter, Devon’s Substack (blog), November 14, 2024, https://devoneriksen.substack.com/p/the-trillionaires-of-mars. ↩

  19. Kevin D. Dayaratna et al., “Powering Human Advancement: Why the World Needs Affordable and Reliable Energy,” The Heritage Foundation, December 14, 2023, https://www.heritage.org/energy/report/powering-human-advancement-why-the-world-needs-affordable-and-reliable-energy. ↩

  20. Brandon Meeks, “Nationalism, Globalism, and the Ships of Tarshish,” American Reformer (blog), February 3, 2022, https://americanreformer.org/2022/02/nationalism-globalism-and-the-ships-of-tarshish/. ↩

Graph View